The days of halting trains and unloading contents for inspection appear to be over at the Dutch Port of Rotterdam, where trained operators can now use high-power X-ray scanners to produce clear, unambiguous imagery of densely packed cargo in trains moving at speeds up to 60 kilometers per hour (35 MPH).

Simultaneously, another group of operators located several miles away in a secure inspection office collect, analyze and evaluate the X-ray images for a wide range of potential threats, dangerous materials and contraband.

Because it all happens so swiftly -- particularly as the containers are never unloaded or diverted individually to cargo inspection facilities -- the speed of throughput increases exponentially. To be precise, Dutch Customs at the Port of Rotterdam can now inspect nearly two hundred thousand rail containers per year, or a single 40-foot container in eight-tenths of a second.

This is the future, or as in the case of Rotterdam, the present model of an enhanced global supply chain -- ultra-high-speed rail throughput combined with ultra-accurate threat detection. This combination of speed and efficiency is an innovation that allows not only railways to be more secure, but the global supply chain as a whole.

Rail has long been an overlooked component of the modern supply chain, even though it is arguably one of the most important. Because of the nature of rail -- with thousands of miles of unguarded track, often connecting countries -- it has previously been challenging to screen and secure without causing a disruption to the supply chain. And while ports and airports typically get the lion’s share of technology innovation, all components need to be equally considered and secured to prevent interference and have a smoothly run supply chain.

For a long time, cost-minded operators have tended to view the security of rail cargo scanning and the efficiency of throughput as essentially two competing interests.

When minor security gains trigger major productivity losses -- and when even small throughput disruptions can grind supply chains to a halt -- it’s easy to see why rail lines have been relatively (and intentionally) under-served by global security improvement efforts.

As a result, one of the more popular rail security/efficiency compromises has been to implement a procedure for “small sample” screenings, by which only a small portion of each rail car or trainload is scanned for threats, dangerous materials, and contraband -- providing a modicum of security without disrupting the core efficiency of the supply chain.

However, as malicious activities have become more prevalent and more sophisticated, “small sample” rail screenings have become increasingly insufficient. The United States Department of Homeland Security even instituted a 100% cargo-screening mandate at ports (though that mandate has since been retracted).

Countless other customs and border agencies, companies, and national organizations are pursuing their own answers to similar and related security/efficiency challenges. For instance, rail operators worldwide are now experimenting with higher-energy X-rays for penetrating more densely packed freight cars. (When throughput lags, companies will attempt to condense their shipments into fewer cars, which can pose an obstacle for traditional X-ray scanners.)

In addition to the security factor, revenue is another motivator for government agencies to embrace this new cargo scanning technology. Customs enforcement of a freight rail (for international cargo lines) is extremely important to a country as contraband goods can cost governments hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax dollars. And smuggled contraband can also help fund organized crime and domestic terrorists, making it all the more important that rail lines not be overlooked when it comes to integrating cutting edge security.

In fact, a single malicious attack, occurring anywhere in the world, can devastate the global supply chain in its entirety, driving up prices and imposing major delays on manufacturers worldwide. By not being required to choose between 1) preventing extraordinary threats, and 2) maximizing the efficient of ordinary processes, the evolving technology can truly accelerate rail cargo screening and secure it too.

Andrew Goldsmith is vice president, Global Marketing for Rapiscan Systems. He can be reached at: agoldsmith@rapisacnsystems.com.

Community groups have waited over 3 years to access/use parts of a new community centre in Hamilton, Ontario due to poor security design. The original design of the building had a secure barrier between the centre and adjoining public school but this barrier was found to contravene Building Code and was never installed. A costly ($50,000) re-design process is soon to be undertaken to enable community groups to utilize the new space as intended.

It amazes me how often new buildings (public, non-profit and private/commercial) are designed with little to no consideration of safety and security. This is a case that clearly illustrates what can happen when security design isn't addressed properly. For a few thousand bucks this community centre could have had a proper CPTED and physical security design review conducted which would have ensured that the appropriate access was facilitated and probably would have rectified a number of other security vulnerabilities that ended up in the final design.
Beasley security snag resolved

Mr. Langston has a great background in policing an in the security industry.

Mr. Langston will be an asset to NPSS and will be key to the successful growth of NPSS in the coming years.

Welcome aboard Robin.

Overzealous security guard

Crown bouncer Quoc Hai Tran might have attacked a mother of four enjoying a night out at the casino but he loved his job and wanted to keep working in the security industry, a court has heard today.
Defence barrister Lachlan Carter told the Supreme Court that Tran, 35, had simply been overzealous when doing his job and not involved in a pre-meditated act of thuggery.
Mr Carter said Tran, who was born on a fishing boat travelling from Vietnam to Australia in 1978, had been doing nothing more than carrying out his duties according to his training.
He said the attack on Olivia Ferguson should be viewed as an "isolated aberration".
Advertisement
But prosecutor Andrew Tinney, SC, said Tran and two other bouncers, Jacques Tony Fucile, 31, and Nicholas Vladmir Levchenko, 27, had been part of a powerful contingent of security officers on duty the night Ms Ferguson and her partner, Matthew Anderson, were attacked.
Mr Tinney said the bouncers were in a position of power and had a clear duty to wield that power responsibly.
He said their victims were vulnerable and powerless.
The prosecutor said the community expected security staff to show restraint, patience and care and to safeguard the wellbeing of patrons.
The three Crown bouncers had comprehensively failed to abide by that duty, Mr Tinney said.
He claimed the courts had to strongly condemn and punish security officers who acted with such aggression and unnecessary violence.
But the three defence barristers acting for the bouncers urged Justice Lex Lasry to impose a fine on the men and not record a conviction. This would mean they would be able to resume working in the security industry again in five years' time.
Tran was found guilty by a jury of assault, intentionally causing injury and false imprisonment.
Fucile was found guilty of intentionally causing injury and false imprisonment, while Levchenko was found guilty of false imprisonment.
The maximum penalty the bouncers face is 10 years' jail.
Defence barrister Ian Hill, QC, for Levchenko, said his client had not been looking for trouble on the night and was just doing his job under the orders of a supervisor.
Mr Hill said the marching of Mr Anderson out of the casino using a horizontal transport hold where the patron's wrists are bent back - which the jury found to be unlawful - had been "a successful extraction".
He said Levchenko was acting in accordance with his training at Crown Casino "be that training right or wrong".
Ms Ferguson, Mr Anderson, and their friend Anthony Dunning went to the casino on Sunday night, July 3, 2011, after a day at the football before Mr Dunning came to the attention of security staff about 10.30pm when he appeared to be drunk and was asked to leave by bouncer Matthew Lawson.
As he was being escorted outside, Mr Dunning, who later died from cardiac arrest, bumped into his two friends and things escalated.
Ms Ferguson slapped Tran across the face believing he said something derogatory about her friend to Mr Lawson. Mr Lawson, 27, was found not guilty in November last year of the manslaughter of Mr Dunning after he was brought forcibly to the ground and restrained.
Mr Tinney told the jury Tran was angry at being slapped and this had stung him into action.
Ms Ferguson was thrown violently to the ground by Tran before being put in the painful horizontal hold where the forearms are held parallel to the ground and the wrists bent up and backwards towards the chest. She was marched out of the casino by up to five bouncers.
Close-ups of Ms Ferguson's face from the CCTV footage showed she was in obvious pain and it was completely unnecessary for her to have been man-handled in such a way, Mr Tinney said.
Mr Anderson was also thrown to the floor by Levchenko and Fucile and forcibly turned on to his stomach.
Mr Anderson claimed he suffered a broken nose and broken elbow before being restrained and taken outside.
Mr Tinney said the bouncers had shown no remorse for their thuggish behaviour and deserved to be jailed.
Justice Lasry will sentence the men on June 14.

Most retailers in Canada are failing to follow new federal rules when it comes to operating video surveillance cameras in their stores and businesses, according to a study by a professor of information studies at the University of Toronto.

Andrew Clement, co-founder of the Identity, Privacy and Security Institute, found that not a single video camera in one of Canada’s largest malls complied with the signage requirements of the federal Personal Information, Protection and Electronic Documents Act.